A cyclist who suffered a brain injury when he was hit by a Dublin van driver has been awarded €3 million.However, the court was told that the injured man was deemed to have contributed 20 per cent of the negligence to the collision.That percentage was reflected in the settlement he received, meaning the full sum he would have been awarded was €3.75 million.

Yeah, that's right. If you're not wearing an EPS yarmulke when an unlicensed and uninsured driver slams into you it's 20% your fault:

The injured man, Alexandru Doroscan (33), was hit by a van while cycling in Blanchardstown in the west of the city on August 2nd, 2013.The collision occurred at the junction of Ongar Distributor Road and Sheridan Road where he was struck by van driven by Declan Meade, Lisbrack Rd, Longford.The hearing was told Meade was neither licenced nor insured at the time. And in a separate criminal case he was jailed for 3½ years, with 2½ years suspended.

And would a helmet even have helped?Mr Doroscan, a married father of one child, was thrown around three meters into the air when Meade’s van hit him.The Garda estimated the van was travelling at 57km per hour.

But sure, it certainly makes sense that the cyclist was 20% responsible for this. In fact they should have docked him another million for not wearing a parachute. After all, if only he had been then after being thrown into the air he might have floated gently to safety.

By this logic pedestrians, slip-and-fall victims, and really anybody who's injured in any conceivable situation should be partially responsible if they were not wearing a petroleum beanie:

People already think you're being irresponsible somehow by riding a bike, so reinforcing that idea by buying into the bareheaded riding taboo will only make it worse.

People I know who don't seem crazy do get crazy over the helmet thing.

They get mad when you suggest that cyclists (esp. kids) need not wear a helmet all the time, that helmets don't make The World Safe, that cyclists aren't always at fault when bad shit happens to them b/c they're not wearing a helmet.

They get mad like a Trump supporter gets mad when you suggest that the DNC is probably not really running a child prostitution ring out of a pizza parlor basement in Washington DC.

Helmet = good. Full stop.

Creating decent infrastructure? Making the roads safe (c.f. Denmark, Holland) so that cyclists don't get mowed down by motorists with numbing regularity? Prioritizing a mode of transportation that gets people out of cars, helps prevent obesity, diabetes, air pollution?

Okay, maybe they're no board with some of that. But not really.

Really, they're saying fuck all of that. Cyclists have enough fucking infrastructure! (Look at all of the miles of white lines painted alongside road shoulders). Just fuck off and put your helmet on; if you don't everything's your fault!

Trump's secretary of defense James Mattis acknowledges that climate change is real. He also contends that "climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today" --- that, in fact, global warming is a serious threat to our national security.

It's not like they found the driver was not responsible; what they found was that the cyclist's personal choice not to wear a helmet was 20% responsible for the severity of the injury.

We don't know how exactly the brain injury occurred, but the idea that an injury without a helmet could be 20% worse than the injury that would have resulted in the same collision with one does not seem remotely unreasonable.

Actually, it seems like the kind of clear-headed division of factors that's desperately needed.

- Not wearing a helmet does not make you "fair game" are in any way absolve the person who hits you

- But if you choose not to follow culturally standard safety norms, then yes, you may be personally partly responsible for the severity of your injuries - not for the fact that there was a collision, but for the specific nature of its impact on your body.

Don't wear a helmet if you don't want to. But do recognize that not doing so is a personal choice, which may have personal consequences - not every crash is the result of an irresponsible motor vehicle operator, and while not every crash is one where a helmet would make a useful difference, some of them are.

...Snob mentioned a while back on the likelihood that a motor vehicle could be used to kill in Times Square. I wonder if the city is going to do anything about it now that they know how easy it is to do it.

...I was coming down 7th Ave just moments before the police blocked times square. In the confusion, everyone was pointing their cameras higher up, so I thought it was another person doing a building climbing stunt... so I turned and took a side street to leave.

...I really should stop going through there when coming back from uptown.

All the the comments to the Dublin article, all 3 of them, were bicycle friendly, and there was this amusing story below the comments:

A stickybottle, put simply, is the knackered cyclist’s best friend. As a rider is being dropped from a group, the team manager or support worker in a following car holds a bottle out the window to hand it up. As the handover is taking place, the rider grabs the bottle tight, as does whoever is handing it up, enabling the rider get a good tow and push from momentum of the car. It’s known as a stickybottle because it appears neither the rider nor the person handing it up is able to take their hand off the bottle; it looks stuck to their hands. But please don’t try this at home. We’ve been slyly cheating this way all our lives; it takes a while to perfect.

...by the way, I was hit by a driver back in (I think) 2009. The driver admitted to me it was her own fault, but then lied in her statement to the police and the insurance company. When I spoke to the insurance company, the thing they seemed most interested in was whether or not I was wearing a helmet, despite the fact I had no injury to my head whatsoever. This is all about drivers' insurance companies offloading responsibilities and it's disgusting.

Lob forbid I am ever hit again I will lie lie lie to the police and ins. company from Word One because that's what drivers do.

Without taking anything away from the horror and loss experienced by those in Times Square, the thing to keep in mind is that an incident like this is universally viewed as that.

We can't physical protect ourselves against every possible attack or outrage.

What we do need is protection against the highly dangerous everyday habits that many still erroneously believe are reasonable. Drivers who text while driving. Taxi drivers who turn blindly across the greenway cycle crossing before stopping in it to check for pedestrians in the 2nd crossing. Cops who view the bike lane as their personal parking preserve.

The battles to fight are the ones where people still need convincing, and where the everyday hazards result in an ongoing pattern of injuries.

Perhaps we'll see a few more bollards in Times Square, but every other crowded sidewalk in the city will remain unprotected. Wouldn't it be more useful to get them bordering bike lanes, and blocking those greenway service entrances such as the one I had to eject a NJ driver from the other day?

Not long ago I watched a driver have a seizure and scrape to a stop along the east side greenway wall at the con ed squeeze; absent that wall she'd have been on the greenway. But while it was nice that wall was there, statistically it would be far more useful to have plastic "you shouldn't be here" posts on more everyday bike routes, than concrete walls on a few.

The battles to be fought are not over the infrequency absurdities, rather, they're over the everyday transgressions.

"Your Honor, while my client does admit that he raped the plaintiff, he does contend that because she was wearing provocative clothing she shares 20% of the responsibility for the severity of the injuries she sustained while he was raping her."

Anonymous at 3:24, you could be an expert witness for Roger Ailles estate. Speaking ill of the dead, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Cosby and Donald Trump are 3 possibilities for pallbearers, who will the other 3 be?

>Foam on head or not, IF THE DRIVER WASN'T A SHIT HEAD, NO INJURIES AT ALLLLLLLLLL

The court finding did not disagree with that.

What it ruled was that the consequences were potentially worse without a helmet than they might have been with one.

Dismissing that idea out of hand is every bit as illogical as arguing that a driver who hits a helmet-less cyclist is free of blame.

Go ahead and be absolutists if you want - but when you can't even get other cycling advocates to agree with you, it's obvious you have no chance getting non-cycling politicians, police, judges, juries, or the general public to do so.

Had the driver of the van not been unlicensed, speeding, and driving dangerous driving, Mr Doroscan would have been 100% uninjured that day.

Well, I hope there is an Irish equivalent of the Cyclists' Defence Fund that will take on an appeal for the disgraceful decision to reduce Mr Doroscan's compensation. I'm sure there are many cyclists around the world who would be happy to contribute to a challenge to this dangerous precedent.

Never mind the contentious evidence behind helmets, their necessity and their purported effectiveness for a moment:

How would you assign damages had this unlicensed, uninsured, speeding driver hit and similarly injured somebody driving a classic car without airbags and perhaps without modern seatbelts? Or the injured cyclist had been in a Honda Fit versus a Cadillac Escalade? Should the Escalade's driver enjoy greater damages?

What if a cyclist's injuries are shown to have been exacerbated by the choice of disc brakes over rim brakes due to the rotor itself causing lacerations? Of chain rings over belt drive? What if a phone or key in their pocket added to their injuries? What if a shorter cyclist's head would have missed impact or a pre-existing medical condition worsened injuries? Should inches of height mitigate damages?

I can imagine any of the above arguments getting made in some sort of kitchen-sink legal defense. Doboscan seems to have suffered from poor lawyering and somebody's ability to sell the sizzle of Anon 2:32's half-thought.

>Never mind the contentious evidence behind helmets, their necessity and their purported effectiveness for a moment:

>How would you assign damages had this unlicensed, uninsured, speeding driver hit and similarly injured somebody driving a classic car without airbags and perhaps without modern seatbelts?

That is indeed an excellent example, and especially if this were someone's daily commuting choice rather than an incident on the way to classic car rally, I think that it would be reasonable for a jury to weigh it when making an award; though I don't know if legal precedent would allow them to.

>Or the injured cyclist had been in a Honda Fit versus a Cadillac Escalade? Should the Escalade's driver enjoy greater damages?

A key question that would likely come up would be if the vehicle met established safety standards. Presumably the Fit does, even if it is a less protective steel box of crumple zones (though mass isn't everything - some SUVs are not particularly survivable).

An even more interesting question would be what precedents there are for arguing that a victim's decision not to wear a seatbelt results in some sharing of responsibility for the severity of injuries in a collision for which they were in no way at fault.

>What if a cyclist's injuries are shown to have been exacerbated by the choice of disc brakes over rim brakes due to the rotor itself causing lacerations?

Indeed a potential argument, if someone can present evidence that this sort of injury is a common result of that choice.

>Of chain rings over belt drive?

Less so, as these are the norm. Most jurors have probably never even heard of a belt drive bicycle.

>I can imagine any of the above arguments getting made in some sort of kitchen-sink legal defense.

That is usually how court cases work, and while at times it may seem absurd in the moment, on the average it's a good thing that parties get to make their case to the jury.

----

A reality is that politics and regulation are all about compromises.

Hypothetical question:

Would you trade a law allowing smartphone-photo-app citizen-reported ticketing of bike lane obstructors for a law establishing an adult helmet requirement?

I would. But then I'd rather have the slim advantage of a foam hat on my head even if I crash due to my own misjudgement without a car in sight.

I was going to suggest that the carnage in Timeses Squares deserved it's own post or something here. Until, when you look back at the Snob Report over time, it is sadly too common. This helmet %age shit and just thinking about the apathetic police assistance to Dulcie Canton and others pushes my marginal propensity to sit my ass on the bus and train. Oh wait, standing room only. There seems to be a fornicated ton more of salmoning psychos out there than I remember from last year. Especially with the electric tank bikes out there. WhatEtiquetteYouRunnin ... pull over, take up the whole space which is your right of way, yell, spit? I usually just give way because I have enough going on. I have to hollow out the frame pump and fill it with rebar.

* * * Update: in a separate incideint, Breaking911 reports that 5 People were just struck by vehicle, 1 DOA, 3 likely to die / very critical on Broadway & Castleton Ave. It is unclear if the two incidents are linked.

I remember getting smeared by an insurance company lawyer when I got hit by a cab 20 years ago. I was coming home from a fred trek up 9w, and was hit shortly after crossing the gwb. Everything was pleasant at the deposition until the camera started rolling and the lawyer started her questioning. "I suppose you were in black spandex?" (squeaky voice:my jersey was blue and yellow.. very bright)

WHAT WERE YOU DOING IN WASHINGTON HEIGHTS ON A SATURDAY NIGHT AT 7 PM!!!

Last night I was in a collision with another cyclist. The details are too numerous to go into here. I was wearing a helmet but curiously it didnt save my life BECAUSE I DIDNT HIT MY FUCKIN' HEAD. Can that really happen? The helmet didnt do shit to prevent the huge bruise on my leg.

What cycling advocate thinks cyclists should be liable for a percentage of their own injuries based on pure speculation after they've been hit by an unlicensed driver? "

...

Here in Australia, a frightening number of them.

They may not say precisely the same thing or express as explicitly as you have, but more than one of our cutesy-pie advocacy groups, rather than actually advocating for actual cycling stuff like actual improved infrastructure and shit, seem to expend more energy extolling the virtues of obeying road rules (however onerous and punitive toward cycling they may be), deferring to (as opposed to respecting) other road users and yes, dogmatically acclaiming the benefits of helmets citing all the flawed data every other moron does.

A few years ago, one Melbourne group even took great pride in advocating for increased fines for cycling offences (their idea of improving conditions for cyclists being to compel compliance under threat of penalty) and strutted around in the their spandex costumes like rock stars when they succeeded.

Their motivation for being such fucknuts seems incomprehensible, but you don't have to endure too much of their outpourings before the question of buying membership to their supposedly preeminent advocacy group arises — a package that just happens to include... insurance.

They're hucksters and spivs and deeply compromised bullshit artistes who use the same obscurantist language of the religious zealot and bunnies like "Anonymous 3:38pm".

It's probably overstating it to say they're trolls or have a hidden agenda, but they do bear the same hallmarks and to avoid our dire fate, you need to give these pricks much shorter shrift than you have here lest they flower into the fully fledged despotic autocrats that make our cycling lives such a misery.

Most evenings, my commute takes me past the corner where the car in Times Square was pictured on its side on fire. This morning, I came through Times Square about an hour before the drunk driver ran three blocks up the sidewalk mowing down 20 people.

Remember op-ed contributor Myron Magnet in the WSJ a few days ago who suggested that lowered speed limits, bike lanes, and plazas create lawless drivers and therefore we should, among other things, rip up the Times Square pedestrian plaza?

Fuck him.

I'm heading home now. I'll be riding west on 45th & crossing Broadway like I do most evenings. Assuming it isn't closed for blood removal (I know it won't closed as a crime scene. It's just an "accident.")

KellyAnn - as has been pointed out above. The issue is about insurance, law enforcement officials etc. putting the blame on cyclists when they're not wearing a helmet.

Helmets are for a very specific issue - they are designed to protect for falls from around a meter and a half at low speeds, essentially falling off your bike at 12 mph.

They will provide minimal protection when involved in a collision with a vehicle. There is also the added statistic that people who are involved in accidents while cycling are no more at danger of head injuries than pedestrians or drivers.

So the insistence of some people, groups and officials that wearing a helmet is essential is demonstrably false, and they fail to look at the actual measures that keep people safe while on bikes. These are an increase in the number of people cycling and decent segregated infrastructure.

The helmet debate is pointless, and a distraction from the real safety debate that transportation and law enforcement officials should be having.

It's bike to work day (aka bike nerd day) here in the nation's shitstorm central. Like St Patrick's Day and New Years Eve - I usually avoid it, but today was a glorious morning for using legs to turn cranks that make wheels go round and round. And good thing I helmented myself - otherwise I would not have had anything to carry all the swag (being a nerd means never having enough free crap).

Even the eBike cyclist that passed this morning slowed, ring-a-linged his bell and passed when it was safe.

>KellyAnn - as has been pointed out above. The issue is about insurance, law enforcement officials etc. putting the blame on cyclists when they're not wearing a helmet.

That has happened in the past, yes. But it is not what happened in this case. Rather there was a very clear-headed division of factors - the cyclists lack of headgear had nothing to do with the fact that there was an accident. But plenty of reasonable people could for very sound reasons be convinced that it played a small contributing role in the severity of the injury head injury that resulted.

>Helmets are for a very specific issue - they are designed to protect for falls from around a meter and a half at low speeds, essentially falling off your bike at 12 mph.

>They will provide minimal protection when involved in a collision with a vehicle. There is also the added statistic that people who are involved in accidents while cycling are no more at danger of head injuries than pedestrians or drivers.

An instant before you're going to be hit by a speeding car, your deity of choice freezes time to offer you a foam hat to wear during the impact. Are you saying the chance of marginal benefit is so low that you would decline?

I'm considering dumping my helmets, the lack of reading comprehension here makes me worry that they may cause some sort of progressive mental decline that makes reading comprehension more difficult. Perhaps it's head heat or styrofoam leaking or a combination of the two.

Since we're sharing unpopular opinions, why be so smug and pedantic and self satisfied and anonymous? If you're to only voice of reason among a bunch of numbness danger monkeys, why not stand behind your opinions?

Another hot take, I think the vehemence/high-handedness of the tone people take is inversely proportional to miles/year. I have never met a long time cyclist who rides often, who it that much into the business of others. If I hear another person who just rides in the 5 boro bike tour and most summer weekends talk down to me about commuting in the city... Well, I'll do what i always do: roll my eyes. This is why, while I know Dulcie socially, i could never join her when she sends me her bike advocacy event invites. I don't think most people's opinions count and I don't want to hear them. Even if I have the same or similar opinions, I think most people who simply own bikes instead of really ride them should shut up. If I had Twilight Zone powers, NY would be filled with panicking mouthless faces. There I said it.

Don't tell House of Rep member Darrel Issa, Neanderthal Party. Every time an electric car burns he sends out propaganda warning how unsafe they are. He totally ignores the hundreds of thousands of combustion engine car fires.

I'm surprised you can understand my comments. I truly hate the Macs they have me use at work. I hate how, when I type something wrong, which is guaranteed because I only use three fingers, Macs don't give you some red squiggly lines you can come back and check, they guess what you were trying to type and just "fix" it for you. It's worse than Clippy.

Sponsored Linkway:

About Me

While I love cycling and embrace it in all its forms, I'm also extremely critical. So I present to you my venting for your amusement and betterment. No offense meant to the critiqued. Always keep riding!